David Cameron wants to ban encryption

[tom564]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks

 

So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.

 

Some problems I see:

 

1. Governments can and will abuse power

 

2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 

 

3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 

 

4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 

 

What do you guys think?

[dadasmithywinkle]

So it looks like Cameron can go and suck it.

[Guest Kloaked]

Fix your color to "automatic".

 

And looks like the article has either been pulled from The Guardian or your link is broken - I think the article was pulled.

[imperialplanet]

That's the stupidest thing you can do.

[tom564]

Fix your color to "automatic".

 

And looks like the article has either been pulled from The Guardian or your link is broken - I think the article was pulled.

Fixed

[Virgule]

ban encryption ?????????

 

might as well hand out my credit cards to strangers in the streets...

[xox]

<3 Davey C, but this, this is absurd..

 

You've misinterpreted this, this is in response to the Carlie Hebdo attacks. He is basically saying that GCHQ needs more power to look into the lives of potential terrorists, not into your lives or average peoples' lives.

 

We all know everyone agrees that the internet needs to be somewhat regulated, it's just finding the right balance.

What Davey C is doing here is protecting the right for us to feel safe, something that should be protected imo.

[BurgerBum]

ban encryption ?????????

 

might as well hand out my credit cards to strangers in the streets...

exactly.

[Damikiller37]

Yeah that won't happen or the UK will suffer both from the disagreement of... well everyone with this happening and I can see attack at a government happening very soon after if it takes place. Man I hate that guy!

[tom564]

Wouldn't it be great to live in a country where whistle blowers and journalists can't communicate securely /S

[Tedster]

Wouldn't it be great to live in a world where every country's government cared for the privacy of everyone else?

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

Fix your color to "automatic".

 

And looks like the article has either been pulled from The Guardian or your link is broken - I think the article was pulled.

 

 

That's the stupidest thing you can do.

Why?

[Trik'Stari]

I'll say what Frankie Boyle said.

 

"why are we led by the least among us?"

 

Seems to be the truth for all nations, we have morons at the helm.

[Trik'Stari]

It's a double edged sword. If he wants the CIA (or whatever it's called in the UK) to get more power, banning encryption is going to hurt them as well. Say goodbye to whatever encoded classified material they have.

 

I see no good in this, unless someone can explain it for me.

Don't you know? no one is allowed break the law except the government, and exposing it means you're a traitor and get espionage charges filed against you.

[Guest]

This line is amusing "But the question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not."

 

No privacy, no privacy at all. Not for people, not for business owners who want to keep their corporate secrets hidden. Everything is up for grabs. That shit is sickening...

[xXxYOLOxSWAGxXx_420BlazeIt]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks

 

So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.

 

Some problems I see:

 

1. Governments can and will abuse power

 

2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 

 

3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 

 

4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 

 

What do you guys think?

There are already laws covering the use of encryption in the UK and US.

[jameshumphries47]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/uk-spy-agencies-need-more-powers-says-cameron-paris-attacks

 

So it looks like Cameron wants to make it illegal for any encrypted communication to happen without the government being able to intercept and view the content provided they have a valid warrant (which we all know they follow..) This would make using encryption such as PGP illegal and could even result in company's like apple having to redesign their OS for the UK market.

 

Some problems I see:

 

1. Governments can and will abuse power

 

2. Banning encryption could result in weaker overall security, the current security situation is terrible when it comes to encryption and imposing tough restrictions in the use of crypto could result in even less implementation meaning that anyone could intercept the plain text data 

 

3. apps like snapchat / whatsapp that use encryption could become illegal to use as company's would have to adapt their app for use in the UK and could prevent international use 

 

4. It doesn't solve the problem, "The attacks in Paris demonstrated the scale of the threat that we face and the need to have robust powers through our intelligence and security agencies in order to keep our people safe." even if they had this power unless they were actively surveying the suspects they wouldn't of stopped the attack. 

 

What do you guys think?

oh coz liziad squad wouldent be a problem with no encryption, and plus the way the uk government are going David Cameron wont be PM for long, and what isnt he planning to ban

[imperialplanet]

Why?

without encryption we are vulnerable to intruding forces.   

[Trik'Stari]

This line is amusing "But the question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not."

 

No privacy, no privacy at all. Not for people, not for business owners who want to keep their corporate secrets hidden. Everything is up for grabs. That shit is sickening...

No privacy, except for government officials of course.

 

And thus begins the start of Animal Farm, everyone is equal, except some are more equal than others.

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

Welp. Looks like James Cameron has gotten a little senile recently.

[tom564]

<3 Davey C, but this, this is absurd..

 

You've misinterpreted this, this is in response to the Carlie Hebdo attacks. He is basically saying that GCHQ needs more power to look into the lives of potential terrorists, not into your lives or average peoples' lives.

 

We all know everyone agrees that the internet needs to be somewhat regulated, it's just finding the right balance.

What Davey C is doing here is protecting the right for us to feel safe, something that should be protected imo.

Yes that is what they say it will be used for but there would be nothing but policy stopping them from taking it further

[tom564]

There are already laws covering the use of encryption in the UK and US.

Yes but they are no where near as extreme, in the UK it is illegal to refuse to hand over your key if you get a court order for it which I don't agree with either but it's not as bad 

[Trik'Stari]

Yes that is what they say it will be used for but there would be nothing but policy stopping them from taking it further

Right, because that's ever worked.

 

Just like how in the US we have "secret" courts in the US where a judge is the only person defending you from getting spied on by the government.

[xox]

This line is amusing "But the question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not."

 

No privacy, no privacy at all. Not for people, not for business owners who want to keep their corporate secrets hidden. Everything is up for grabs. That shit is sickening...

Let me give you a scenario, my friend...

 

A mate of mine was raped in 2013 by this person. The experience was so traumatic for him that he deleted all of the facebook, text and Whatsapp messages from him. Thanks to privacy laws, he isn't able to get hold of these messages without a warrant, which is fine. Only, you can't get a warrant granted based on verbal accusations, now, since my mate deleted everything there is no evidence, so the rapist is still free. Fair? I think not, this is completely unfair and having to not have to go by such strict regulations would be better in such situations.

 

 

Yes that is what they say it will be used for but there would be nothing but policy stopping them from taking it further

Actually, there is; In Britain, we're part of the EU, which regulates stuff like this. If there's an issue or a breach, it is classified as criminal. Also, there are independent scrutiny bodies set up to protect your rights in situations like this.

 

 

Right, because that's ever worked.

 

Just like how in the US we have "secret" courts in the US where a judge is the only person defending you from getting spied on by the government.

Again, this is the UK, not America; American law is somewhat relaxed about this despite the fact that it's clear in the constitution. It's important to note that the UK's GCHQ is regulated, wheras the NSA is more autonomous, only subject to scrutiny when the public really requests it.

[tom564]

Right, because that's ever worked.

 

Just like how in the US we have "secret" courts in the US where a judge is the only person defending you from getting spied on by the government.

Yeh, noone to watch the watchers 

 

Terrorism is not as much of a problem in comparison as they want us to think, too many times they have used it as a way to push legislation and policies, look at the TSA for example. The loss of privacy and freedom in the name of security isn't worth the trade off imo.